Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 156, Number 27: Regulations Amending the Railway Safety Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations

July 2, 2022

Statutory authority
Railway Safety Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

Securing the rail system in Canada is a difficult yet vital task. The inherent openness, as well as the volume of goods and passengers that it carries, makes it an attractive target for attacks and unlawful interference. Unlawful interference with railway property, systems, and infrastructure can have major impacts on public safety, the environment, and the economy. There has been a disturbing trend of increased levels of security incidents related to Canada’s rail infrastructure in recent years.

The rise in incidents relating to trespassing, sabotage, tampering, vandalism, interference with rail operations, and suspicious activities, is of concern. For example, the number of rail security incidents that were reported in 2020, more than doubled those reported in 2019. Data from 2021 shows that the upward trend is continuing. While there have not been fatalities linked to these events, these incidents could create safety risks for the travelling public, critical infrastructure, surrounding neighbourhoods, railway staff and even to those persons committing the infractions.

The Government needs to take necessary measures to implement a robust enforcement regime to deal with the rise in security breaches to the rail transportation system.

Currently, the provisions in the RSA relating to trespassing, interference with railway operations, and cooperation with enforcement officers, are not designated under the existing Railway Safety Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (the Regulations), nor are any of the requirements of the PRTSR which were implemented to increase the likelihood that potential security incidents will be detected and prevented, and the consequences of such incidents will be mitigated. In other words, AMPs are not currently available as an option to enforce any of these provisions. In addition to the status quo, which involves prosecuting under the Criminal Code summary conviction procedure set out in Part XXVII, current enforcement alternative options to address offences of the RSA and the PRTSR are limited, as laid out below:

• sections 26.1 and 26.2 of the RSA — (i) both having been designated under the Contraventions Act ticketing regime (Contraventions Regulations, Schedule X, items 1 and 2), issue a contravention ticket with a present fine amount, or (ii) pursue prosecution under the Criminal Code, Part XXVII, Summary conviction procedure;
• subsection 40.11(5) of the RSA — (i) pursue prosecution under the Criminal Code, Part XXVII, Summary conviction procedure; and
• provisions of the PRTSR — (i) issue a warning or (ii) pursue prosecution under the Criminal Code, Part XXVII, Summary conviction procedure.

Having only these options can lead to inconsistent results: some offences may be under-enforced while other offences (enforced via prosecution) may appear over-enforced relative to their nature. The Contraventions Act ticketing regime, where offences are designated as contraventions under the Contraventions Regulations, is designed to deal with regulatory offences that are of a lesser degree of seriousness with preset fine amounts established at a level that is more proportionate and appropriate to the seriousness of the offence, based on the circumstances at hand ($500 and $750 respectively for contraventions of sections 26.1 and 26.2 of the RSA, the maximum of contraventions fine amounts would be $5,000 in light of the parameters set out under the Contraventions Act). For more serious cases of non-compliance, there are options to pursue prosecutions under the RSA or the Criminal Code. However, going through the court system can be a lengthy and burdensome process and could result in a criminal record or stigma that may not be warranted.

Due to the increased levels of security incidents related to Canada’s rail infrastructure in the past years, it has become apparent that additional enforcement options are needed. The Contraventions Act ticketing regime with preset fine amounts may not be the most appropriate alternative enforcement option in certain circumstances where, for instance, gradual scales of fines as well as distinctive fines depending on the status of offenders potentially involved are needed (corporations’ violations would deserve a higher level of fine), and prosecutions are mainly reserved for the most severe cases, Transport Canada (TC) has identified a need for greater flexibility in the enforcement of the above-mentioned provisions of the RSA and the requirements of the PRTSR. In line with other modes of transportation that TC regulates and TC’s rail safety program, AMPs were identified as a suitable complement to TC’s current rail security enforcement tools under the RSA and the PRTSR.

Background

Railway Safety Act

The federal legislation that governs rail safety and security in Canada is the RSA, which applies to railway companies operating over the tracks of a federally regulated railway. The RSA also applies to road authorities and private authorities who share ownership of grade crossings across Canada. One of the objectives of the RSA is to promote and provide for the safety and security of the public, and the protection of property and the environment. In support of this objective, the RSA establishes the principle that railway companies are responsible for the safety and security of their own operations.

TC is responsible for administering the RSA and for developing and implementing related policies and regulations. TC has the mandate to protect people, property, and the environment by ensuring railways operate safely and securely within a national framework. In support of this mandate, TC conducts inspections and audits to verify that companies and road authorities are complying with requirements under the RSA and its associated regulations.

The current enforcement options to deal with non-compliance under the RSA relating to trespassing, interference with railway operations, and cooperation with enforcement officers, are limited to issuing contraventions tickets for only two offences, namely section 26.1 and section 26.2 of the RSA, or to recommending prosecution through the criminal court system. Contraventions tickets do not always serve as an effective deterrent where fine amounts are required at a level higher than those preset under the Contraventions Regulations because of their relative low cost; and prosecutions can be lengthy and costly, so they tend to be used only in the most serious cases.

Passenger Rail Transportation Security Regulations

The PRTSR were introduced in fall 2020 to enhance the security of the passenger rail system in Canada. These security regulations apply to passenger companies (a company whose operations include the transport of passengers by railway) and host companies (a railway company that authorizes a passenger company to operate on its railway), and includes requirements to engage in security planning processes and risk management activities that will increase the likelihood that potential security incidents will be detected and prevented, and the consequences of such incidents will be mitigated. All the security requirements of the PRTSR came into force as of January 2022. Currently, TC enforcement officers have two options for enforcing compliance with the PRTSR: (i) issue a warning or (ii) recommend prosecution through the criminal court system. In some cases, warnings would not be sufficient or effective because they can be disregarded, and the court prosecutions could be lengthy and costly. The program is in need of a medium-impact enforcement tool to fill the gap.

Administrative monetary penalties

AMPs offer a flexible tool for enforcing federal offences of a regulatory nature. AMPs use financial penalties to deter non-compliant behaviours and can be issued by a regulator, without court proceedings, for designated legislative and regulatory requirements. AMPs address non-compliance where simple warnings or contravention tickets with preset fine amounts are not appropriate, but where prosecution, seizure, licence suspension or revocation are considered too harsh. AMPs are designed to bring regulated entities and individuals into compliance without entering the judicial forum — the Contraventions Act ticketing remaining a prosecution — and the legal ramifications of a criminal record or imprisonment and provide the required margin of maneuver in terms of gradual scales and levels of fine amounts. AMPs are considered an effective medium-impact administrative enforcement tool as they allow for flexibility to consider factors such as recurring violations and the severity of the offence when determining the penalty amount.

The use of AMPs to enforce the RSA and the PRTSR would be consistent with the enforcement approach used by TC in other modes of transportation and in other areas of the rail transportation system.

Objective

The objective of these regulatory amendments is to deter trespassing and other unlawful interferences with the railway network, to promote cooperation with TC enforcement officers, and to ensure the consistent and effective enforcement of Canada’s rail security regime.

AMPs would serve as an effective deterrent to security incidents against the rail network and an incentive to cooperate with TC enforcement officers.

AMPs would fill a gap in the implementation of the PRTSR to enhance passenger rail security as they would provide the Minister of Transport (the Minister) with a tool to address security violations without relying on or burdening the criminal court system. AMPs would allow TC to take a graduated approach to enforcement that aims to match the enforcement response to the severity of the non-compliant behaviour, and the characteristics of the contravener (i.e. compliance history, cooperation, assistance, remediation). A graduated approach provides TC with the flexibility to apply the least intrusive enforcement measures necessary to correct non-compliant behaviour, and to escalate those measures, when needed, to deal with more serious and/or repeated violations.

It is anticipated that these amendments would contribute to a strengthened rail security regime and to the Government’s objective of protecting the public, the environment, and the rail infrastructure from harm.

Description

The proposed amendments would amend the Regulations to set out designated provisions of the RSA and the PRTSR, so that the violation of any of these designated provisions may be proceeded with the imposition of a monetary penalty. In total, 81 provisions would be designated through this regulatory initiative.

This proposal aims to amend Schedule 1 of the Regulations by designating:

• three provisions of the RSA (sections 26.1, 26.2 and subsection 40.11(5)) that deal with trespassing, interference with railway operations, and cooperation with enforcement officers; and
• 78 provisions of the newly introduced PRTSR, which set out specific security requirements that must be met by passenger rail and host rail companies.

Schedule 1 of the Regulations prescribes the maximum payable amount for an individual and a company for each violation of a designated provision. There are three distinct maximum payable amounts reflecting the level of significance of each designated provision measured by the seriousness of the consequences or potential consequences of the contravention. The three maximum payable amounts reflect low-risk violations of administrative-type provisions, medium-risk violations, and major violations that pose the highest risk. A range exists for each category of risk and an AMP can be imposed for any amount as long as it does not exceed the maximum designated category. The RSA specifies that violations that continue on more than one day constitute a separate violation for each day.

Table 1: Maximum payable amounts for a violation

Level of Risk	Maximum Payable Amount ($) Individual	Maximum Payable Amount ($) Corporation
Category A: If violation is low-level risk	$5,000	$25,000
Category B: If violation is medium-level risk	$25,000	$125,000
Category C: If violation is high-level risk	$50,000	$250,000

Currently, there are several other RSA and regulatory provisions designated in the above-noted categories for rail safety violations. The proposed amendments would be incorporated into this established framework, consistent with how rail safety provisions have been designated in the past, according to the seriousness of the consequences or potential consequences of their contravention. When imposing AMPs, TC enforcement officers determine the penalty amounts based on several factors such as degree of harm caused, degree of negligence or deliberate conduct, compliance history, willingness to cooperate with officials, and detection.

Provisions under the RSA

TC is proposing to designate three RSA provisions under the following risk categories:

1. Category B: Medium-level risk

• Section 26.1: No person shall, without lawful excuse, enter on land on which a line work is situated.
• Subsection 40.11(5): Any person from whom documents or data are requested under subsection (4) shall provide all reasonable assistance in their power to enable the enforcement officer making the request to carry out the enforcement officer’s duties and shall furnish any information that the enforcement officer reasonably requires for the purposes of the RSA.

2. Category C: High-level risk

• Section 26.2: The users of a road shall give way to railway equipment at a road crossing if adequate warning of its approach is given.

Provisions under the PRTSR

TC is proposing to designate 78 provisions of the PRTSR which include requirements for security awareness training, security coordination and reporting, security inspections, security risk assessment, security plans, security plan training, and security exercises. As with the RSA provisions, these provisions would be categorized according to the level of seriousness of the noncompliance. In general, violations of an administrative nature would be considered low-risk non-compliance, while violations related to the development and implementation of security procedures would be considered higher-risk non-compliance. Some illustrative examples are provided below:

1. Category A: Low-level risk

• Subsection 3(2): The passenger company and host company must provide the Minister with (a) the name and job title of the rail security coordinator or acting rail security coordinator; and (b) the 24-hour contact information for the rail security coordinator or acting rail security coordinator.
• Subsection 9(3): A passenger company, other than a small passenger company, must give the Minister 45 days’ notice of any operations-based security exercise that it plans to carry out.

2. Category B: Medium-level risk

• Subsection 3(1): A passenger company and host company must have, at all times, a rail security coordinator or an acting rail security coordinator.
• Subsection 5(2): A passenger company must establish and document a process with respect to security inspections, including (a) a procedure for conducting security inspections; (b) a method for determining whether security has been compromised; (c) a method for determining whether additional security inspections are necessary if, having regard to the circumstances, security could be compromised; (d) a method for addressing the situation, if security has been compromised, before the train enters into service; and (e) a method for preventing unauthorized interference with the train after the inspection and until passengers board the train.

3. Category C: High-level risk

• Subsection 4(1): A passenger company or host company must report to the TC Situation Centre, by any direct means of communication established and communicated by the Centre, any threat or other security concern that results or may result in an unlawful interference with passenger rail transportation. The report must be made as soon as feasible but no later than 24 hours after the occurrence of the threat or other security concern.
• Subsection 5(3): In order to ensure that there are no security concerns related to passenger rail transportation, a passenger company must ensure that security inspections consist of both a ground-level visual inspection of the exterior of the train and an inspection of the interior of each car and are carried out in accordance with the process set out in subsection (2).

Regulatory development

Consultation

Impacted stakeholders have been consulted on the proposed amendments. Rail stakeholders generally agreed that AMPs would be a more effective tool than ticketing to deal with security incidents and they expressed interest in working with TC on this initiative.

In January, February and March 2022, pre-consultations were held with the Rail Security Working Group, which includes representation from the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), railway and local police, and security representatives from passenger and freight rail companies. The focus of these consultations was on the proposed amendments to designate provisions of the RSA. The working group expressed general support for the regulatory proposal as a means of curbing unlawful interference with the railway system and enquired if railway police would also be able to use AMPs to deal with security incidents against the rail network. TC indicated that only enforcement officers designated by the Minister would be able to issue AMPs; however, it would require a cooperative effort between the railway police and TC enforcement officers to facilitate investigations.

In February 2022, a notice of TC’s intentions to pursue the amendments was sent to passenger companies and host companies regulated under the PRTSR, as well as their industry association, RAC. At the same time, a notice was also posted on TC’s rail security webpage, which is open to the public. Stakeholders were invited to submit feedback and questions about the proposal to TC. Follow-up consultations were held with stakeholders in March 2022. Stakeholders did not express concerns with the methodology used to categorize penalties by risk (low, medium, and high). However, stakeholders did express concerns that, by designating provisions of the PRTSR, TC seemed to be moving away from the collaborative approach to improving passenger rail security that industry was accustomed to. Under the PRTSR, TC and the rail industry work together to develop proactive risk-based practices (including security inspections, training, and security reporting) to identify, prevent and mitigate security threats, and help to minimize the consequences (loss of life, property damage, environmental damage and reduced international trade flows) should an incident occur. As well, some stakeholders raised concerns about the potential for inconsistent application and overuse of the AMPs. TC reassured stakeholders that while AMPs are being added to the enforcement toolbox, TC would continue to work with railway companies to develop and improve processes and procedures to proactively identify, prevent and mitigate threats. TC inspectors would continue to provide ongoing oversight, guidance and education to railway companies, and TC enforcement officers would take a graduated approach to the use of AMPs in accordance with existing TC policy to ensure that penalties are applied in a fair, impartial, predictable, and nationally consistent manner.

All consultation sessions referred to above were held virtually.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the proposal is likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. The assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect and after examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties are identified.

Instrument choice

The rail security program lacks a medium-impact administrative enforcement tool to address rail security violations. All violations under the RSA and the PRTSR cannot realistically be prosecuted. The resource costs and time frames for a prosecution would not be in the public interest for many instances of non-compliance. Likewise, contravention tickets may not be the most appropriate enforcement tool in certain situations where for instance gradual scales of fines as well as distinctive fines depending on the status of offenders potentially involved are needed. In the absence of an enforcement tool to address offences that would not warrant a prosecution, but for which a warning or a contravention ticket is not a sufficient response, under-enforcement of the RSA and the PRTSR would continue without the proposed amendments.

An AMPs regime would be an effective option to improve the enforcement of the RSA and the PRTSR. To achieve this, TC must pursue regulatory action. Regulations are the prescribed instrument for designating provisions of the RSA and any regulations under the RSA for the purpose of issuing AMPs; this is set out in section 40.1 of the RSA. No non-regulatory options were considered.

Regulatory analysis

Analytical framework

The costs and benefits for the proposed amendments have been assessed in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis. Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

Benefits and costs associated with the proposed amendments are assessed based on comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government does not implement the proposed amendments. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes because of the proposed amendments.

Taxes, fees, levies, and other charges constitute transfers from one group to another and are therefore not considered to be compliance or administrative costs, whether they are intended as incentives to foster compliance and change behaviour or whether their purpose is to recover the costs of providing a service. The costs to pay for AMPs, as well as the revenue to the Government generated through AMPs, are not considered costs nor benefits within the scope of the regulatory analysis since they are outside the normal course of business, occurring only in instances of non-compliance.

The analysis estimated the impact of the proposed amendments over a 10-year period from 2022 to 2031, with the year 2022 being when the Regulations are expected to be registered. Unless otherwise stated, all costs are expressed in present value in 2021 Canadian dollars, discounted to the year of 2022 at a 7% discount rate.

Affected stakeholders

The proposed amendments would impact the Government, specifically 24 existing railway inspectors at TC who would be required to complete training to familiarize with new monetary penalties. The number of railway inspectors is not expected to grow over the analytical time frame.

Individuals, rail passenger companies and host companies who contravene the designated provisions would be subject to the AMPs regime. The proposed amendments would incentivize these stakeholders to change non-compliant behaviour.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Under the baseline scenario, railway inspectors do not have the option to use AMPs as an enforcement tool when encountering non-compliance with provisions of the RSA and the PRTSR.

Under the regulatory scenario, the proposed amendments would designate provisions of the RSA and the PRTSR. The AMPs regime would provide railway inspectors the ability to issue proportional penalties for non-compliance.

Under the regulatory scenario, railway inspectors would need to complete initial and refresher trainings to familiarize themselves with the proposed monetary penalties.

Benefits and costs

The proposed amendments would designate provisions of the RSA and the PRTSR, so that contravention of these provisions may be proceeded with as a violation, and consequently, a monetary penalty. Designating these provisions would impose $25,015 in costs on the Government, between 2022 and 2031.

Benefits

The proposed amendments would contribute to a strengthened rail security regime and assist in the Government’s efforts to deal with the rise in dangerous and unlawful conduct and curb the trend without burdening the criminal court system, by offering an additional enforcement tool to enforce these provisions.

Specifically, designating section 26.1 would deter trespassing and follow-on incidents such as tampering; designating section 26.2 would deter interference with railway operations; and designating subsection 40.11(5) would ensure cooperation with enforcement officers. Further, the monetary penalties proposed would be a productive enforcement tool that would deter non-compliance without the possible legal ramifications of a criminal record. This would ensure that offenders would be subject to a process that can be more appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the offence. Ultimately, it is anticipated that AMPs would deter violations or repeated violations to promote compliance with the Act and the PRTSR.

While there is a lack of data to monetize these benefits, it is believed the benefits would outweigh the costs associated with the proposed amendments.

Costs

The costs of the proposed amendments are associated with existing rail security inspectors taking an initial AMPs training course and refresher training to familiarize themselves with new violations and penalty amounts. This analysis estimated the opportunity cost, defined as the value of reduced productivity of TC inspectors due to their absence from work to take part in such trainings. The opportunity cost is estimated by multiplying TC inspectors’ hourly wage rate and the hours of training.

Initial training

Twenty-four existing TC inspectors^{footnote 1} would participate in a one-day (7.5 hours) training, in the first year of implementation (2022). The training would outline how to determine and properly administer AMPs for non-compliance under the Regulations. This would result in an incremental cost of $12,425 to the Government in 2022.

Refresher training

The 24 inspectors would also need to participate in a half-day (3.75 hours) refresher training once every three years, following the initial training in 2022. This would result in an incremental cost of $12,590 to the Government, between 2023 and 2031.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 10 (2022–2031)
• Base year for costing: 2021
• Present value base year: 2022
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 2: Monetized costs

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	Base year (2022)	Other relevant years (2023–2030)	Final year (2031)	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Government	Initial training	$12,425	$0	$0	$12,425	$1,769
	Refresher training	$ 0	$9,211	$3,379	$12,590	$1,793
All stakeholders	Total costs	$12,425	$9,211	$3,379	$25,015	$3,562

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the proposed amendments would not impact Canadian small businesses. Furthermore, AMPs are not considered compliance burden for the purposes of the small business lens.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply as the proposed amendments would not result in an incremental change in administrative burden. AMPs are not considered to be an administrative or compliance burden as per the Policy on Limiting Regulatory Burden on Business.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

This regulatory proposal is not being introduced to comply with an international agreement or obligation, nor does it have any impacts related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum. There is no indication of any direct or indirect discrimination or competitive advantages provided to Canadian versus foreign entities, and it is very unlikely to trigger the disciplines in our trade agreements.

AMPs regimes are common in the Canadian federal regulatory landscape, and several AMPs regimes are already in place at TC. The decision-making processes contained in TC’s oversight policy and associated operating procedures are aligned with those in place within other modes at TC. The United States also uses monetary penalties to enforce requirements related to rail security.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

TC determined that the proposed amendments are not expected to negatively or disproportionately impact any group of persons based on identity factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age, etc. Moreover, during consultations with stakeholders, no concerns were raised about disproportionate impacts based on identity factors.

By enhancing rail security in Canada, this proposal is expected to benefit the rail sector (including those working in the rail industry, rail passengers, and rail infrastructure), people living in communities near rail infrastructure, and Canadians in general.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

The proposed amendments do not add any new requirements; they simply create an additional regime for enforcing the RSA and the PRTSR by designating existing provisions and setting out maximum penalties for each designated provision. Companies and persons that comply with the requirements of the RSA and the PRTSR would not be impacted by the proposed amendments.

The proposed amendments would come into force upon their publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, which is anticipated for fall 2022. It is expected that the development of both the initial and refresher training would take place prior to the coming-into-force date of the proposed amendments. As such, these costs were not included in the analysis.

In accordance with TC’s Enforcement Policy, TC would take a graduated and proportionate enforcement approach to educate, deter, and, when necessary, penalize those who contravene the RSA and its associated regulations.

To ensure that the regulatory amendments are applied in a fair, impartial, predictable, and nationally consistent manner, training would be provided to TC rail security officials. Having the training would ensure that departmental officials will take a standard approach under similar circumstances to achieve consistent results.

With respect to non-compliance with the RSA provisions, cooperation and coordination between TC rail security officials and railway and local police will be maintained to ensure an effective and consistent implementation of the AMPs regime.

In the event of non-compliance with the PRTSR, TC would consider the company’s previous compliance history and willingness to comply before taking appropriate enforcement action, which could range from a verbal or written letter of warning to an AMP of up to $250,000.

No service standards are planned for the proposed AMPs. In accordance with section 40.22 of the RSA, TC must issue an AMP no later than 12 months after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose.

Payment of penalties, which must be made by credit card, or a certified cheque or money order made payable to the Receiver General for Canada, would need to be made within 30 days after the day on which a notice of violation is served.

Review mechanism

Under the RSA and regulations pursuant to the RSA, any person served with a notice of violation may request from the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) a review of an alleged violation or the amount of the penalty. The Minister or the person served with a notice of violation may appeal the results of the determination to the TATC for final determination. As a quasi-judicial body, the TATC review process is less formal than court proceedings. Thus, an AMP regime is relatively inexpensive to administer within an existing compliance and enforcement program, and it normally results in more timely and effective enforcement than prosecution.

Contact

Shelley Wang
Chief
Surface Security Policy
Intermodal Surface, Security and Emergency Preparedness
Transport Canada
Tower B, 112 Kent Street, 14th floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0W8
Email: tc.simsregulations-reglementsstti.tc@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, under section 40.1^{footnote a} of the Railway Safety Act^{footnote b}, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Railway Safety Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be submitted online on the Canada Gazette, Part I, or, if submitted by email, post or other format, must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Shelley Wang, Chief, Policy, Surface and Intermodal Security Policy, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada, 112 Kent Street, Tower B, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8 (email: tc.simsregulations-reglementsstti.tc@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, June 22, 2022

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Railway Safety Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations

Amendments

1 Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Railway Safety Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations ^{footnote 2} is amended by adding the following after item 11:

Item	Column 1 Designated Provision	Column 2 Maximum Amount Payable ($) Individual	Column 3 Maximum Amount Payable ($) Corporation
11.1	Section 26.1	25,000	125,000
11.2	Section 26.2	50,000	250,000

2 Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 21:

Item	Column 1 Designated Provision	Column 2 Maximum Amount Payable ($) Individual	Column 3 Maximum Amount Payable ($) Corporation
21.1	Subsection 40.11(5)	25,000	125,000

3 Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after Part 5:

PART 6

Designated Provisions of the Passenger Rail Transportation Security Regulations

Item	Column 1 Designated Provision	Column 2 Maximum Amount Payable ($) Individual	Column 3 Maximum Amount Payable ($) Corporation
1	Subsections 2(1) and (2)	50,000	250,000
2	Subsection 2(3)	25,000	125,000
3	Paragraph 2(4)(a)	50,000	250,000
4	Paragraph 2(4)(b)	50,000	250,000
5	Paragraph 2(4)(c)	50,000	250,000
6	Subsection 2(5)	25,000	125,000
7	Subsection 2(6)	5,000	25,000
8	Subsection 2(7)	5,000	25,000
9	Subsection 3(1)	25,000	125,000
10	Subsection 3(2)	5,000	25,000
11	Subsection 3(3)	25,000	125,000
12	Subsection 3(4)	25,000	125,000
13	Subsection 4(1)	50,000	250,000
14	Subsection 4(3)	50,000	250,000
15	Subsection 4(4)	50,000	250,000
16	Subsection 4(6)	25,000	125,000
17	Subsection 4(7)	25,000	125,000
18	Subsection 5(2)	25,000	125,000
19	Subsections 5(3) and (4)	50,000	250,000
20	Subsection 5(5)	25,000	125,000
21	Subsection 5(6)	50,000	250,000
22	Subsection 5(7)	50,000	250,000
23	Subsection 5(8)	50,000	250,000
24	Subsection 5(9)	5,000	25,000
25	Subsection 5(10)	5,000	25,000
26	Paragraph 6(1)(a)	50,000	250,000
27	Paragraph 6(1)(b)	50,000	250,000
28	Paragraph 6(1)(c)	50,000	250,000
29	Subsection 6(2)	25,000	125,000
30	Subsection 6(3)	50,000	250,000
31	Subsection 6(4)	25,000	125,000
32	Subsection 6(5)	25,000	125,000
33	Subsection 6(6)	25,000	125,000
34	Subsections 7(1) and (2)	50,000	250,000
35	Paragraph 7(3)(a)	50,000	250,000
36	Paragraph 7(3)(b)	50,000	250,000
37	Paragraph 7(3)(c)	50,000	250,000
38	Paragraph 7(3)(d)	50,000	250,000
39	Paragraph 7(3)(e)	50,000	250,000
40	Paragraph 7(3)(f)	50,000	250,000
41	Paragraph 7(3)(g)	50,000	250,000
42	Paragraph 7(3)(h)	50,000	250,000
43	Paragraph 7(3)(i)	50,000	250,000
44	Paragraph 7(3)(j)	50,000	250,000
45	Paragraph 7(3)(k)	50,000	250,000
46	Paragraph 7(3)(l)	50,000	250,000
47	Paragraph 7(3)(m)	50,000	250,000
48	Paragraph 7(3)(n)	50,000	250,000
49	Paragraph 7(3)(o)	50,000	250,000
50	Paragraph 7(3)(p)	50,000	250,000
51	Paragraph 7(3)(q)	50,000	250,000
52	Subsection 7(4)	50,000	250,000
53	Subsection 7(5)	25,000	125,000
54	Subsection 7(6)	25,000	125,000
55	Subsection 7(7)	25,000	125,000
56	Paragraph 7(8)(a)	25,000	125,000
57	Paragraph 7(8)(b)	25,000	125,000
58	Paragraph 7(8)(c)	25,000	125,000
59	Paragraph 7(8)(d)	25,000	125,000
60	Paragraph 7(8)(e)	25,000	125,000
61	Paragraph 7(8)(f)	25,000	125,000
62	Paragraph 7(8)(g)	5,000	25,000
63	Subsection 8(1)	50,000	250,000
64	Paragraph 8(2)(a)	50,000	250,000
65	Paragraph 8(2)(b)	50,000	250,000
66	Paragraph 8(2)(c)	50,000	250,000
67	Subsection 8(3)	25,000	125,000
68	Subsection 8(4)	25,000	125,000
69	Subsection 8(5)	25,000	125,000
70	Subsection 8(6)	5,000	25,000
71	Subsection 8(7)	5,000	25,000
72	Subsection 9(1)	50,000	250,000
73	Subsection 9(3)	5,000	25,000
74	Subsection 9(4)	25,000	125,000
75	Subsection 9(5)	5,000	25,000
76	Subsection 9(7)	5,000	25,000
77	Subsection 9(8)	5,000	25,000
78	Subsection 9(9)	5,000	25,000
79	Subsection 9(10)	50,000	250,000

Coming into Force

4 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that public email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.